US Judge Rules Constitution Does not Gurantee Travel within States

US Judge Rules Constitution Does not Gurantee Travel within States

www.upi.com

Tracy and Dorothy Dickerson sued Gretna, the Gretna Police Department and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. They said they were not allowed to use the Crescent City Connection, which crosses the Mississippi River.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon said there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution. The judge also found that the Dickersons missed the deadline for certification as a class-action suit.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If the story was longer I would have posted the next paragraph but that is all there is. Basically what she ruled is that SCOTUS has said we can travel state to state but according to her we have no guarantee of traveling within our states. Talk about a stupid ruling if you can go from state to state one would think you certainly can travel within a state DOH, or am I missing something here?

This is a result of a lawsuit from Katrina where several were refused passage across a river near New Orleans.

NEXT WEEK Headlines in your local Paper

Judge rules you are not allowed to travel to work. and do not even think about a trip to the grocery store. :shk:

Me thinks this is proof positive the NWO has arrived.

www.upi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

You said that we have a right to travel from state to state; I didn't see that statement in the article. Have you read the decision, and do you know where it is?

While I don't like the ruling, and the precedent it sets can anyone actually find where in the Constitution it mentions freedom of travel form state to state?

Also, given the system of government we have local, state, federal don't/shouldn't states have the right to decide or regulate who can enter/leave their state or district (sort of like national scaled down borders)? Or does federal law and the fact that this is one country trump that entirely?

It depends on many things that aren't mentioned in the article. Was the bridge safe? Was it travel to an area that was deemed unsafe? The gov't is allowed to and even expected to curtail travel under certain conditions. You might be allowed to travel from state to state, but not if you're trying to go to an area where your life is in extreme danger.

It's The Thought That Counts

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It depends on many things that aren't mentioned in the article.

True enough, but that doesn't mean I can't come up with something to be outraged about, does it?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
While I don't like the ruling, and the precedent it sets can anyone actually find where in the Constitution it mentions freedom of travel form state to state?

The freedom to travel throughout the US cannot be abridged by a state through the use of taxes or tarrifs. Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867).

I frankly don't think that the ruling of this court can stand. Of course, the procedural errors are probably fatal.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
While I don't like the ruling, and the precedent it sets can anyone actually find where in the Constitution it mentions freedom of travel form state to state?

Also, given the system of government we have local, state, federal don't/shouldn't states have the right to decide or regulate who can enter/leave their state or district (sort of like national scaled down borders)? Or does federal law and the fact that this is one country trump that entirely?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is what gave most minorities rights to travel between states.

WestPoint23 --

Local and state governments can pass and enforce any law it wants to, but that law is subject to later scrutiny by the court system, including the Federal Courts and Supreme Court, both of which can rule that a law is unconstitutional (or, conversely, they can rule that nothing in the constitution prohibits a particular law from being enacted and enforced.)

and Togetic --

Here's a link to a more in-depth (but older) article about this case (you need to go to the bottom of the linked page to find the article):
www.nola.com
It says in this article that the town of Gretna was not able to handle the large number of "refugees" (that's my word) from New Orleans who had already crossed over the bridge and, citing public safety as a factor, did not allow people to enter their town.

IMO, one can argue that this is no different than any other natural disaster when people are prohibited by local governments (by the police, etc.) from entering a certain area due to concerns over public safety, whether it be the safety of those trying to enter, or the safety of those who are already there.

Judge Lemmon's ruling seems to say that nothing in the constitution prohibits local governments from deciding whether people can freely enter their town -- the police can prevent you from entering, if they want. BUT, according to the Constitution, a state government can't prevent people from entering their state. Even though it seems illogical, these are two totally different things (IMHO).

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.


[edit on 5-4-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Togetic

The freedom to travel throughout the US cannot be abridged by a state through the use of taxes or tarrifs. Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867).

I frankly don't think that the ruling of this court can stand. Of course, the procedural errors are probably fatal.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Togetic]

It depends on if this was abridged through taxes/tariffs or if it was abridged for safety concerns. States can't stop you from traveling by making you pay to get in or out, but they CAN stop you if the bridge is about to collapse, or there is some other major safety concern. If there's a huge fire that you're about to drive into, then obviously they not only have the right, they are EXPECTED to stop you from traveling into it. If it's a safety concern, then I full expect it to stand up.

And majic, you smart###.

Originally posted by Togetic
I didn't see that statement in the article. Have you read the decision, and do you know where it is?

Only three papers carried it that I could find on Google and yahoo the UPI , carried it as did the Washington times. Earlier today Google had a link to the wall street journal where (that article used the terms interstate and intrastate within the article and is where I got the info from but I did not save that link because the story was so short and now it is gone from Google or I would post it. I do not subscribe to the WSJ so I am unable to search its archives.

Just to make sure at that time i looked up the def in my dictionary and found

in·tra·state (¹n”tr…-st³t“) adj. Relating to or existing within the boundaries of a state.

and

in·ter·state (¹n“t…r-st³t”) adj. 1. Involving, existing between, or connecting two or more states. --

Source American Heritage Dictionary. Now if I can find the wall street version and what they said you will see what she implied or at least what the paper claims she said. I have not seen the ruling although I will try and find it if I can although I doubt goole has found it yet because the time frame is so short between the ruling and now normally I think rulings are posted a month after they are made but I could be wrong.

More about the circumstances:

The Dickersons were among hundreds who tried to flee New Orleans for safety on Sept. 1, but said that police from suburban Gretna confronted them and forced them to turn around. Police later said they blocked the evacuees because there were no supplies or services for them on the other side of the river.

news.aol.com

This was a case of the police stopping travel because there was no guarantee that the people wouldn't be trapped, or would have food and water on the other side of the bridge, or even shelter. In this case, I believe the police were completely right to stop them from traveling.



Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.


[edit on 5-4-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

OKAY found a source that carries the quote I mentioned



[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
IMO, one can argue that this is no different than any other natural disaster when people are prohibited by local governments (by the police, etc.) from entering a certain area due to concerns over public safety, whether it be the safety of those trying to enter, or the safety of those who are already there.

Judge Lemmon's ruling seems to say that nothing in the constitution prohibits local governments from deciding whether people can freely enter their town -- the police can prevent you from entering, if they want. BUT, according to the Constitution, a state government can't prevent people from entering their state. Even though it seems illogical, these are two totally different things (IMHO).

Ah, that makes much more sense. The issue here is whether there is a public safety exception to this right. I think as a matter of common sense if having a crush of people coming into your city would make people unsafe, then it makes sense that you should be able to keep people safe. Having people get hurt in the name of a freedom doesn't really serve anyone well. It's unfortunate; no one wants the people trying to get out of New Orleans to get hurt themselves.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by shots

NEXT WEEK Headlines in your local Paper

Judge rules you are not allowed to travel to work. and do not even think about a trip to the grocery store. :shk:

Me thinks this is proof positive the NWO has arrived.

Wow! Can you say "Let's blow things way out of proportion"? I think you can. Why is it that every time a judge rules in favor of the government (town, city, state or federal) people start screaming "NWO" or "POLICE STATE"? I don't get it. Especially in this case. The authorities were acting IN these people's interest - not against them. This family and all the others who sued are just looking to find a scapegoat for their own stupidity. They should have gotten out of town way before the roads had to be closed down. Its just that simple folks.

Originally posted by Mr No One
The authorities were acting IN these people's interest - not against them.

Well I can recall part of what happened and as I recall there was no curfew in effect so the police had no authority to stop them. I also do not recall a state of marshal lawbeing in effect although a state of emergency was.. The safety bit they are putting forth is just a ploy to make you think otherwise. It was clear the police meant business otherwise they would not have pointed their guns at them whe they told them to turn around.

On the very same day I also recall those friendly police officers shooting one man who tried to cross I believe the same bridge but I could be wrong. Now I want to make it clear I am not black but I can see more then a hint of racial implications here.

You can try and make it out to be a safety issue if you want but I think there is much more to this and it needs to get out. As for getting out of there sooner HUH?? Why in the hell didn't the Black Mayor advise them to get out? Why didn'ty he mobilize all those plans he had and where were the buses?

See the blame goes both ways both white and black



[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]

It makes no difference if there is a curfew in effect or not. The police can block you from traveling to an unsafe area whether there is or not. There is nothing that says that they can only stop you if there is a curfew in effect.

So we should have let people go anywhere, and have no food/water/shelter? I guess the police should have just pulled out and let them do whatever they wanted to do instead of trying to keep them safe.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It makes no difference if there is a curfew in effect or not. The police can block you from traveling to an unsafe area whether there is or not. There is nothing that says that they can only stop you if there is a curfew in effect.

Zap I do not know the area in question have only been thru there once or twice but as I recall alll the people wanted to do was get away from that hell hole known as the super dome.

Do you know if the roads out of Gretina were open on the other end or closed off by flooding? I don't, but that would be a good place to start and if they were open then what excuse could they offer?

obviously the bridge was safe to cross or the police could not have crossed it to stop them, I suspect we are only getting part of this story to be honest.

I know this very judge, quite personally. My family and her family have very close ties politically. She should never have been on this case in the first place.

I find it most unfortunate for everyone in this country that such a case would have been heard here, when I can not believe ever that she did not have pretrial bias against the people going across that bridge. I saw those people myself up there, and I tell you this, those were the scared people that were trying to get away from the chaos still going on here. The criminal element was still tucked away back in the city itself, the people on that bridge were trying to get away with them.

Well, this just lessens my opinion on that family even further than it had already plummetted in the past. :shk:

[edit on 4/5/07 by niteboy82]

Originally posted by shots
Do you know if the roads out of Gretina were open on the other end or closed off by flooding? I don't, but that would be a good place to start and if they were open then what excuse could they offer?

The roads out of Gretna were fine. The entire area there that the people on the bridge were on is elevated at about 20-25 feet (that is just an estimate) for miles.

Apparently it was safe, as I passed these people in my car while leaving.

[edit on 4/5/07 by niteboy82]